What Does "Simulation" Mean To You? [+]

[Lanefan]

Various people upthread have done a fine job of defining simulation in the same (or better!) terms that I'd use, which means I don't have to type it all out.

In short (yeah, right!) and in summary, then, simulation to me represents a collection of elements mostly around relatability:

--- internal consistency within the setting*. That is to say, if something works in a particular way once then there's a reasonable expectation that, barring external influences, it'll work that way every time.
--- enough relatability to the real world that players can immediately grasp the basic stuff (gravity, time, weather, tides, human setting inhabitants, etc.) because they already have experience with those things in reality. Further, if any of those basic elements are to be inherently different in the setting (e.g. there's no gravity, or the weather never changes, or the humans are all seven feet tall) those things are clearly communicated up front so as to allow the players to adjust their imaginations accordingly.
--- using abstraction and rules to as best as possible+ mirror the setting's physics, rather than tweaking the setting's physics to suit the abstraction. And yes, this means that if the setting's physics are to be significantly different from our own, those differences need to be figured out before rules design even begins e.g. if faster-than-light travel is an element of the setting, how do the physics of it actually work.
--- the ability to explain how and why fantastic things work as they do, or at all, when compared with or added to our own reality; such that players can more easily relate to the fantastic. In other words, the physics of the fantastic get melded in with the physics we already know, thus making the simulation a more-cohesive whole. See above re faster-than-light travel.

* - or discrete parts thereof. For example, a D&D party journeying to a different plane of existence should perhaps expect basic things to work differently there than they do at home, while still reasonably expecting that new plane to have its own internal consistency once they become more familiar with the place.
+ - practicality rears its ugly head, of course, often requiring some trade-offs and compromises between accuracy of sim and ease of playability. This is the bane of anyone who has ever tried to design a deep-sim game.

 

[TiQuinn]

To me, simulation refers to a focus on the mechanics of the game. The mechanics are approximating something that we have seen elsewhere - it can be the mechanics by which a dragon flies. That’s obviously an imaginary thing but we say it has a speed, a turn radius, the ability to hover or not, etc. THAC0 is a simulation - it’s a mechanic for how someone wielding a weapon or sometimes a spell can reasonably hit a target that has some measure of protection. When a rule is not simulation is when the mechanic is so loose that it’s a simple roll for success, I.E. the player describes what they want to do and regardless of what that is, the mechanic largely stays the same. I think narrative games make the mechanic simply enough - you roll x number of dice and if you get enough sixes, you succeed. Nothing about the action itself as described really impacts the roll.

That’s at least the way I think of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is it a major flaw? A simulation does not have to simulate reality. And changing it on the spot definitely "broke" the simulation as the player was counting on it to remain consistent, and not be arbitrarily changed mid-simulation.

EDIT: I'm going to step back now. This is a + thread and I fear where this going.

As you say, a simulation doesn't have to simulate reality. However, in this case it seems to me that was the intent, and the GM, perhaps subjectively, saw the survival as a bad simulation of reality.

Or, they were peeved at the player's stated knowledge that by the rules the fall couldn't kill them, and got vindictive.

 

[Reynard]

. THAC0 is a simulation

This raises* the question: what is the line between an abstraction and a simulation mechanic?

*not "begs." That's not what "begs the question" means.

 

[Lanefan]

This raises* the question: what is the line between an abstraction and a simulation mechanic?

*not "begs." That's not what "begs the question" means.

I'm tempted to say that a simulation mechanic is more of an underlying feature of the setting independent of whatever abstractions might be in use, while an abstraction is a rules-based attempt to model something in the fiction that the players can't do at the table (physical combat being the most common and most obvious example).

There's some overlap. Falling, and the resulting effects on landing, are an example of both at once.

 

[TwoSix]

I want to avoid the idea that sets of arbitrary systems end up being "simulations". Because then we get...

Oh, I definitely think the result of an arbitrary algorithm still counts as a simulation.

Any one of the 5 billion planets generated for No Man’s sky is a simulation. Creating a survival mode world off a random seed in Minecraft is a simulation.

That’s why I don’t think the “modeling” aspect of the term “simulation” is very useful for what “simulation” means in the specific context of TTRPGs. It’s why I’ve been more focused on the absence of mechanisms driven by contrivance in my own personal definitions.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

My favorite part of GNS theory is the separation of creative agenda from the particular techniques that we've come up with so far to support it. Most posts here are about techniques, not simulationism itself as a reason to play.

Ron Edwards' Simulationism: The Right to Dream defines Simulationism as play where the group's highest priority is sincere exploration of the shared imaginary world for its own sake.

I think the essay is insightful and mostly even-handed, until the end -- the part I really disagree with (and seems to come out of nowhere) is when he says: "It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe interest." Huh?

It depends how much work "devoted" is doing here I guess, but I think Simulationism is hardly fringe! I think it's actually the most mainstream mode of RPG enjoyment.

Couple observations to support that:

• TTRPGs from 1974 to 2000-ish steadily became more simulationist (until they collapsed under their own weight and spent years being dissed by influential game theorists). Edwards doesn't explain why they evolved in this direction for so long.
• Computer games have become steadily more simulationist, at least until 2020ish. Enhancing graphical and physical fidelity is a simulationist technique! At the same time, games became simpler, shallower, and easier to play*. The market clearly prioritizes the "VR" experience over gamist qualities like difficulty and tactical depth, at least up to the point of a 2020ish+ AAA game (VR headset gaming hasn't been hugely successful).

* It's crucial to understand that Simulationism and ease-of-play are totally orthogonal. It's not inherently clunky, crunchy or slow to prioritize exploration of the imaginary space. Simulationists don't necessarily enjoy crunching the numbers or following complicated procedures themselves. "Easy" sim games (like, you know, The Sims) are massive!

Putting it together, I think the best explanation is that people love Simulationism, it's just hard to do with traditional TTRPG tech.

VTT-first TTRPGs are potentially a very interesting tech upgrade to support Simulationist play.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

Yes, rule elements like the very granular weapon reach and space rules, or weapons versus armor types, from AD&D 1E are simulationist rules.

Coming back down to techniques, I think of the weapons v armor table in AD&D 1e as more gamist than simulationist. The idea is to make the player's decision of which weapons to bring along more interesting. It doesn't work very well because the modifiers aren't balanced (swords all the way) and it's unclear how armor types are supposed to map to monster hides.

It's not a great simulationist technique because it doesn't add much to the shared imaginary space. A +1 modifier doesn't meaningfully change the way combat "looks". Compare to sim techniques like hit locations and choice of active defense -- those add meaningful detail to combat.

 

[TiQuinn]

This raises* the question: what is the line between an abstraction and a simulation mechanic?

*not "begs." That's not what "begs the question" means.

I don’t know if this is correct or even helpful but maybe simulation is the overarching term for a combination of abstractions that stand in place for “reality” but when you’re talking about TTRPGs, maybe every rule is really an abstraction at that point.

 

[Parmandur]

These days, I don't really have desire for a lot of simulation in my ttRPG play. I find, again, for me, simulation play puts focus on the thing being simulated, rather than the players, and whether I am running or playing a game, I prefer my ttRPGplay to be more player-focused. I can, and do, play other kinds of games when I want to play with simulations.

For TTRPGs, the problem here is that really simulating results are going to be better done with a computer. Like Oregon Trail, the ultimate simulationist game experience. Tabletop games shine over computerized games precisely in the creative leaps players and GMs can integrate on the fly that wondering simply from the game formulas.

Genre emulation, however, I think can be done very well with some good systems integrated by clever designers for use at the table.